QS 9000 consultant

[SniperMan]

I am looking for a QS 9000 consultant who have experience in Cathodic paint process...We are trying to get a qs REGISTRATION and I need external help to get an fresh perspective.

 

[Marc]

I've worked with clients which had powder paint processes - an example being deposition on foundation brake parts. But my questions is - why QS-9000 and not TS 16949?

 

[SniperMan]

What's the deal with TS 16949 Marc, when I took this job the company is in the middle of QS 9000 preparation? What will I say to convince then in getting this new standard.

I will appreciate if you can comment on this.

 

[Jim Biz]

Sniperman:

Many posts here on why - (yeah-verily) When QS will be a Dead issue..


Form what I've read - IF you are registering now to QS - TS is the logical choice.

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by SniperMan

What's the deal with TS 16949 Marc, when I took this job the company is in the middle of QS 9000 preparation? What will I say to convince then in getting this new standard.

Tell them you researched the situation (and please - do some research beyond what you read here - we've already had a thread on the issue of someone 'abusing' the Cove Forums by using it as a 'sole source' of information...) and that Ford, GM and Chrysler are now mandating a change to TS 16949. Tell them it's about the same thing. Your fight will be with ignorance. I say this because if you're doing QS-9000 in this day and age you're probably pretty far down the supply chain and a customer is exercising their requirement to Supplier Development and the expectation from QS-9000 that you work with your suppliers to develop a quality system based upon QS-9000. In fact, read this thread and you will see that this has carried over to TS 16949 but instead of developing suppliers to QS it's to ISO 9K2K and it's no longer compliance, but rather registration to.

It will probably not just be a management issue you have to deal with, it will also be an issue with the customer who is requiring QS registration. My first reaction to a customer requiring QS at this point is they're either really ignorant or - well, something's not being communicated. You may have to present the arguement to your customer that Ford-GM-Chrysler have all sent letters which in no uncertain terms say Tier I's shall switch to TS 16949. I think some may be posted around here somewhere. Ford's 'new' Q1 program requires 16949 - not a word about QS.

I do suggest you take some time and browse the threads in the TS forum and the QS forum for some more in depth info (I can't do ALL yur research for you )

Tell them you've seen the future - and it's not QS. It's TS. Most people don't know it but TS 16949 has been the direction since 1998. :thedeal: And good luck!

 

[SniperMan]

thanks Marc...seems like I have lots of things to do then.

 

[D.Scott]

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater though. The work you have done with QS will probably fit right into the TS picture.

Take a look at 16949 and I'm sure you will see there is very little difference once you get past the presentation (sure to get blasted on that one). You will still need all the tools from QS (PPAP, FMEA, MSA etc.).

Good luck and welcome to the best quality resource around.

Dave

 

[Marc]

Good point. There is nothing in TS that isn't in QS and what TS does not have that QS does is retained in customer requirements.

 

[John R. Griffin]

I am a QS 9000 Consultant who has worked with several Automotive clients to enable them to become QS 9000 certified and to promote continuous improvement within their organizations. I was previously a tier 1 automotive supplier quality manager. I presided over a powder coat painting process for metal welded assemblies. I aslo have extensive experience in other areas of manufacturing such as plastics ferrous metals, major appliances, audio and video reproduction, wire and cable....

I would be happy to assist any company in meeting the QS 9000 or TS 16949 requirements.